Too much consumption or too high emissions intensities? Explaining the high consumption-based carbon footprints in the Nordic countries

Abstract

Consumption-based carbon footprints have been widely used to examine how different demand-side solutions can reduce the emissions from personal consumption. This study not only utilized consumption-based carbon footprints to examine how people living in affluent nations like the Nordic countries can live 1.5 degree warming compatible lifestyles, but it also expanded on this analysis by focusing on which level of GHG intensity per monetary unit of expenditure it is possible to remain below a 1.5-degree compatible target level at different levels of consumption expenditure. To analyze the GHG intensity per monetary unit of consumption, first, the consumption-based carbon footprints from around 8,000 survey responses from the Nordic countries were calculated. Then the average carbon intensity per unit of monetary spending was calculated across the income deciles in each country and compared to target levels that align with the 1.5-degree compatible reduction pathways by 2030. Finally, the intensities for selected low-carbon consumption choices (vegan/vegetarian diet, driving an EV, renewable electricity for the home, not owning a car, and no air travel) were calculated and compared to the same baseline targets. Our results showed that all of the average carbon footprints and GHG intensities were above the target levels in all of the countries. However, when comparing respondents having adopted two or more low-carbon consumption choices, there were examples of average intensities that met the target levels. The adoption rates of these low-carbon consumption choices were low though, which illustrates the necessity for high adoption rates of multiple low-carbon consumption choices in order to materialize the potential of demand-side climate change mitigation options. Our findings highlight the importance of examining the GHG intensity of per monetary unit expenditure to inform future policies on demand-side solutions and to improve the climate-literacy of consumers, so they can make more informed decisions on consumption choices.

Consumption-Based Energy Footprints in Iceland: High and Equally Distributed

“…The data used to estimate the EFs and to study the spatial and socio-economic drivers came from a larger Nordic survey designed to measure the consumption-based carbon and energy footprints of residents in the Nordic countries (further description of the survey and data can be found in Heinonen et al [37]). This survey was administered via a dedicated website (carbonfootprint.hi.is), and the survey was tailored to each Nordic country in terms of language, income levels, and specific footprint assessments.…”

“…Further, biases such as self-reporting, selection bias, and social desirability bias might have skewed the sample towards respondents inclined towards lower-energy lifestyles. Moreover, the representativeness of the survey data is limited, as the survey prioritized response quality over representativeness, as described in Heinonen et al [37], resulting in a sample with higher urban, education, and income (~67,000 ISK/460€ higher) levels that may not fully reflect the general population's socio-economic and spatial distribution. Due to the higher equality and small proportion of Iceland's population affected by energy and transport poverty [74,80], we expect this to have a more reduced effect than in other locations.…”

Towards an eco-welfare state: Enabling factors for transformative eco-social initiatives

“…Presently, Finnish households account for about 60% of the country’s consumption-based carbon emissions, while the public sector's share is five times smaller (Nissinen and Savolainen, 2019). Recent studies (Akenji et al, 2021: 63; Heinonen et al, 2022) indicate that the most significant reductions in Finnish consumption-based carbon footprints could be achieved through adopting a vegan or vegetarian diet, using renewable electricity and opting for public transport. To shrink household consumption towards the 1.5-degree lifestyle carbon footprint, local experiments recruiting households to participate in trials have been implemented in municipalities of different sizes as part of the international Sustainable Lifestyles Accelerator (SUSLA) project.…”

Climate concern elasticity of carbon footprint

“…We provide an overview of the survey design and data, but a more detailed description can be found in Heinonen et al (2022a). The data consists of more than 5,000 responses to a carbon footprint calculator survey conducted in five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and Norway.…”

“…In line with our previous work and suggestions that the scope of the system and classification of consumption-based carbon footprints needs to be clear for the replication and comparison of studies (Heinonen et al 2022b), we calculated footprints in nine domains: diet, housing energy, vehicle use, public transport, leisure travel, goods and services, second homes, and pets. We succinctly describe these domains here, but more specific information on calculation methods and formulae for each domain can be found in Heinonen et al (2022a) as well as online at carbonfootprint.hi.is. The food domain is based on responses about diet from vegan to omnivore; housing energy is based on respondents' answers about housing type, the decade of construction, heating mode, electricity, and size of the home; private vehicle possession and use is based on the number of vehicles in possession of their household and respondent's answers about the fuel efficiency, fuel type, and distance driven in the past 12 months for each vehicle; public transport was based on respondent's estimates about personal average weekly use of public transport in kilometers; leisure travel is based on the number and length of trips taken for leisure, and mode of travel; for goods and services respondents were asked to provide information on their purchases in multiple domains in line with the Classification of Individual Consumption According to Purpose (United Nations 2018); the pets domain is based on answers about the number of cats and dogs owned; second home footprint is based on Ottelin et al (2015).…”